Aspen Institute’s Panel Discussion on American Energy Leadership

The above panel discussion — moderated by Coral Davenport, who is an Energy and Environment Policy Reporter for The New York Times — features three energy and policy experts.

Meghan O’Sullivan is a professor of International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School. From 2004-2007 she was the deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Michael Levi is the Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change, Council on Foreign Relations. He is the author of The Power Surge: Energy, Opportunity, and the Battle for America’s Future.
Marvin Odum is president of Shell Oil Company.

The discussion was part of the Aspen Institute’s 2014 Ideas Festival. It took place on Sunday afternoon, June 29, 2014 in the Booz Allen Hamilton Room of the Koch Building at the Institute’s idyllic campus in Aspen, Colorado.

A search of the transcript reveals the following word and phrase count:

  • oil – 51 instances
  • natural gas – 45 instances
  • renewables – 12 instances
  • coal – 16 instances (all negative)
  • solar – 8 instances
  • efficiency – 6 instances
  • alternative (energy) – 3 instances
  • wind – 2 instances
  • nuclear – 2 instances (32:24) and (45:04)

Both the word count and watching the discussion indicate that the Establishment in energy is still concentrated on the oil and natural gas industry. As Odum mentioned, Shell’s annual energy output is balanced with a roughly 50-50 mix of those two hydrocarbon products.

Here is the context of the first of the two mentions of ‘nuclear’; Michael Levi was the speaker who uttered the ‘N’ word in both instances.

Coral Davenport (30:22): Natural gas, though, is still a fossil fuel. I think in the White House that they are ecstatic that all of this cheap natural gas is available, that they can put forth these regulations, the market is going to natural gas. It has half the carbon pollution of coal, but what climate scientists would say is that this is maybe a short term good news story, but they are really concerned about what it means for the long term.

What if the electricity market shifts to natural gas? That’s what is being built; that’s what is being invested in. That might be enough for the United States to get to the reductions that President Obama has pledged to meet by 2020 — a 17% reduction in carbon pollution from 2005 by 2020. It is absolutely not at all possible just on the shift to natural gas to get to the reductions, the really difficult, meaty reductions that are needed by 2050, an 80% reduction.

And so I hear climate scientists, I hear environmentalists saying they’re a little uneasy about this fall back to natural gas. That gets locked-in, it doesn’t take the economy where it needs to go. It doesn’t push the economy to those further reductions and yet natural gas is so easy. How does that get dealt with?

Michael Levi (32:24): I look to climate scientists to inform the risk assessment around climate change. To help us understand what’s happening, what it’s impact is — not just on temperatures but on other climatic phenomenon — and what different future pathways for total emissions might do.

I look to people who study the energy system and the economy to map out paths, efficient paths, for getting there.

When I look at the paths that they model, they often involve a boost in the near term from natural gas as it displaces coal, and then a subsequent transition to zero carbon fuels in the electricity sector. Nuclear, renewables or coal or gas with carbon capture and sequestration, technology that takes the emissions and puts them underground. All of these are expensive right now; all of these areas, but there is opportunity to make progress on them.

(Emphasis in original.)

Michael is apparently unaware that many people who are trained and have professional experience as climate scientists have been investing their considerable intellectual assets in learning as much as possible about the energy system and the economy. They recognize many key limitations to the scenarios being promoted by oil and gas companies and the people whose livelihoods are funded with the “seed” money that Odum describes that his company and others in the business spread around. Some of them thoroughly understand the importance of infrastructure “lock-in” and the risk of building bridges that lead nowhere new.

There are major differences between nuclear, renewables and carbon capture and sequestration.

Nuclear energy exists and has been adequately proven to be a scalable, reliable, power source that adds several underused and readily available elements (uranium, thorium and plutonium) to our power fuel choices. In contrast, CCS has only been attempted on a pilot scale and even those experiments have been fraught with cost and value challenges. It is also a technology that inherently reduces our available fuel by reducing power plant efficiency by 20-40% while still requiring supplies from the same limited sources used today.

The diffuse, weather dependent sources that qualify for the renewable brand controlled by organizations like the American Council On Renewable Energy are not capable of providing the quantity of reliable power needed for economic prosperity. That’s why I prefer to call them by the technically more accurate term of “unreliables.”

I reject the continued assertions that “nuclear is expensive” from people who are fundamentally skeptical about nuclear energy technology. No honest engineer involved in nuclear power plant design would attempt to claim that she has ever been told to start with a goal of reducing cost by eliminating unnecessary major expenses. No honest outside observer who understands the benefits of series production can assert that are many nuclear energy programs — outside of a few Navy programs — that focused on reproduction of proven designs, interchangeable parts, and steady workforce development.

Here is the context in which Levi mentioned ‘nuclear’ a second time.

Michael Levi (45:00): Had we decided ten years ago that the solution to climate change was to mandate nuclear power, we wouldn’t be able to take advantage in an effective way of cheap natural gas as a substitute for coal.

That statement makes no sense unless Michael assumes that a policy to ‘mandate nuclear power’ would have meant actively preventing the investments that were made in developing natural gas extraction capability. Logically, if we had started building a substantial number of nuclear power plants 10 years ago under some kind of program that mandated their construction, we would be in the even more enviable position of having both growing supplies of nuclear generated electricity and an abundant supply of natural gas that would be searching for markets.

There wouldn’t be much discussion in Washington or anywhere else about whether or not companies that were extracting natural gas here would be allowed to export their abundant, but increasingly redundant natural gas to places that would pay three to ten times an even lower domestic price than exists today.

Despite numerous opportunities, the closest that Marvin Odum — President of Shell Oil — could bring himself to acknowledging the existence of nuclear energy was by referring to “alternative and renewable energies” (52:54).

This panel discussion is just one more example of how the powers-that-be in the American energy pundit universe cooperate in dismissing nuclear energy as an important energy source. They must recognize that it is a useful tool in the needed effort to slow the growth of fossil fuel demand and prices. It is absolutely required if we want abundant, reliable power without adding to our already high level of CO2 production.

Perhaps the group’s belief is that the technology will just go away if it is ignored enough times.

During the past few months, I have had the good fortune of spending a substantial amount of time with a very bright 4-year old with a naturally questioning attitude. She taught me again how useful it can be to be persistent if the “grown-ups” in the room are ignoring her very important and pertinent questions.

That is one of many good models for nuclear energy advocates to follow. It might annoy the grown-ups, but persistently interjecting ourselves into their conversation can result in averting potential disaster. Persistence worked when my granddaughter asked – several times — “Where is my baby brother?” and we found him gleefully crawling up the wooden stairs when he had just been under our feet in the kitchen.

Update (8/26/2014) Just in case you’d like to hear the 4-year old voice that asked “Where is my baby brother?” check out the below video. Maybe you can even guess why we spent so much time together during the past few months.


PS – In case you missed it, there is a reason I specifically mentioned the names of the building and room at the Aspen Meadows Conference Center where the discussion occurred. Comments on that issue are welcome. Looking at a facility map that includes even more of the building names might expand the conversation in several other interesting directions.

Armond Cohen: Looks at Lovins’s claims with questioning analysis

A few hours ago, I posted a blog titled Amory Lovins-speak: Three misleading statements in a 15 second sound bite. That post included a video embed of Lovins presentation during a March 28, 2014 symposium sponsored by the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth titled Three Mile Island 35th Anniversary Symposium: The Past, Present, and […]

Read more »

Amory Lovins-speak: Three misleading statements in a 15 second sound bite

I had the opportunity to be in the audience during the above talk. You might notice my impolite interjections; I have often been accused of being very poor at hiding my real reactions and feelings. There is a reason why I stopped playing poker during game nights on the USS Stonewall Jackson. I was losing […]

Read more »

Proud nuclear-enthusiast bubble dweller

A friend just passed me a link to an article on Clean Technica by Zachary Shahan titled Why Are So Many Redditors Obsessed With Uncompetitive Nuclear Energy?. Shahan bemoans the fact that nuclear supporters on Reddit seem to outnumber solar and wind supporter and believes that contrasts with the real world as demonstrated by the […]

Read more »

Cape Wind scrambling to meet deadline to qualify for $780 million taxpayer gift

Cape Wind is the leading offshore wind energy project in the United States. In 2001, more than 12 years ago, Jim Gordon, the project founder, started the process of promoting his vision of a building a 430 MWe (peak capacity) field of 130 massive (rotor diameter – 110 m, hub height – 80 m, nacelle […]

Read more »

Limitations of unreliable energy sources (aka “renewables”)

As part of the discussions stimulated by their airing of Pandora’s Promise, CNN hosted a debate between Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute and Dale Bryk of the Natural Resources Defense Council. That debate included some commentary that I thought was worth promoting to the front page. A commenter named Fred, a tech who has […]

Read more »

Solar energy salesman claims nuclear costs twice as much as solar

In the above clip titled Is nuclear power good for our planet Andrew Birch, the co-founder and CEO of Sungevity says that the main reason that he does not like nuclear energy is that it “costs too much”. However, he reveals the shallow nature of his energy production understanding and his financially driven bias by […]

Read more »

Michael Brune of Sierra Club calls nuclear energy irrelevant. Robert Stone says it’s vital to our future

During the promotional period leading up to CNN’s initial airing of Pandora’s Promise, Michael Brune, executive direction of the Sierra Club, and Robert Stone, the director of Pandora’s Promise, engaged in a meaningful discussion about nuclear energy hosted by Kate Bolduan. During the discussion, Brune explains that the Sierra Club believes that nuclear energy projects […]

Read more »

Everything’s Coming Up Trilliums

by Jeremy Whitlock Ah, Nuclear Power, my old friend. Please do come in. Have a seat. Again you’ve been away too long. I feel silly coming here Doc. Now, now, hush. Sooner or later, everyone comes here. Tell me, how are things going? Well that’s just it Doc – on the face of it you […]

Read more »

Open letter to Ralph Nader from Timothy Maloney – Atomic energy is much better than you think

By Timothy Maloney, PhD Editor’s note: Timothy Maloney has written a number of text books about electrical circuits, electricity, and industrial electronics. The below is a copy of a letter that he wrote to Ralph Nader in response to an opinion piece published by CounterPunch under the headline Why Atomic Energy Stinks Worse Than You […]

Read more »

Mark Jacobson pushing his plans in appropriate location – late night comedy show

On October 9, 2013, David Letterman interviewed Mark Z. Jacobson, a leading proponent of a 100% renewable energy future. He described Jacobson as a man with a plan that should make us all more optimistic; that plan describes a world that has a completely changed energy supply system that does not threaten us with catastrophic […]

Read more »

Talk of electric power grid demise is wrong

Someday, America is going to return to logic and reality. We may be making some progress as shown by the fact that there are an increasing number of people who no longer watch TV or trust the TV talking heads in the entertainment business called “television news.” However, we still have our issues. One irrational […]

Read more »